The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Slightly off topic but . . .

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by PeterMac on 06.03.14 13:25

I know this has its own thread, but I include it here to pose the question
Do you really believe Redwood and his 37 chums would risk all for the McCanns ?

http://news.sky.com/story/1221838/stephen-lawrence-report-sparks-public-inquiry
Home Secretary Theresa May has ordered a public inquiry into undercover policing following a report into police corruption in the Stephen Lawrence murder case.
Mrs May's decision to hold a judge-led inquiry into the work of undercover officers and the operation of the Metropolitan Police's Special Demonstration Squad comes after the publication of what she called a "deeply troubling" report reviewing policing of the investigation by barrister Mark Ellison QC following Mr Lawrence's murder in 1993.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by Research_Reader on 06.03.14 13:39

I don't disagree with you, but the thing that confuses me is haven't they openly said that they aren't treating the parents as suspects, and they went along with the Crimewatch reconstruction which still seemed to follow the abduction hypothesis (at the very least it didn't openly point to the many huge inconsistencies in the T9's stories). Haven't Redwood and co therefore misled the public in a sense? Maybe there is someone out there with evidence that might point to the McCann's guilt yet would be deterred from coming forward as it seems the SY inquiry have dismissed that possibility?

____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by Woofer on 06.03.14 13:53

@PeterMac wrote:I know this has its own thread, but I include it here to pose the question
Do you really believe Redwood and his 37 chums would risk all for the McCanns ?

http://news.sky.com/story/1221838/stephen-lawrence-report-sparks-public-inquiry
Home Secretary Theresa May has ordered a public inquiry into undercover policing following a report into police corruption in the Stephen Lawrence murder case.
Mrs May's decision to hold a judge-led inquiry into the work of undercover officers and the operation of the Metropolitan Police's Special Demonstration Squad comes after the publication of what she called a "deeply troubling" report reviewing policing of the investigation by barrister Mark Ellison QC following Mr Lawrence's murder in 1993.

When you put it like that ..... No I don`t think they would.  But I would ask you who has superiority - MI5 or SY?

If MI5 want to cover something up, they will always succeed .... and I`m beginning to wonder more and more if this involves either the royal family or secret scientific or defence goings on.

Look at the Gareth Williams case - even though the Coroner`s verdict was that he died unlawfully and that there was probably another person present and even though she criticised MI5 and allowed SY to investigate MI5 staff, the end result was that he probably died by locking himself in a bag.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti
avatar
Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by suzyjohnson on 06.03.14 14:16

I always thought the main reason SY have said they don't view the McCanns and / or any of the Tapas group as suspects, is in case any angry members of the public decide to take action against the McCanns and their friends. 

It would be very expensive to provide police protection for the whole group.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1192
Reputation : 261
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by Research_Reader on 06.03.14 14:25

@suzyjohnson wrote:I always thought the main reason SY have said they don't view the McCanns and / or any of the Tapas group as suspects, is in case any angry members of the public decide to take action against the McCanns and their friends. 

It would be very expensive to provide police protection for the whole group.

Its an important consideration, but is explicitly and publicly ruling them out the only option they had? I'm sure they could have avoided the question with some clever form of words. After all, I bet every word that Redwood has spoken in public about this case has been extremely carefully judged.

____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by jeanmonroe on 06.03.14 14:26

@suzyjohnson wrote:I always thought the main reason SY have said they don't view the McCanns and / or any of the Tapas group as suspects, is in case any angry members of the public decide to take action against the McCanns and their friends. 

It would be very expensive to provide police protection for the whole group.

But equally, surely, angry members of the public, would 'react' against a 'perceived' cover up, in their minds, wouldn't they?

How FAR would SY have to go to 'protect' the T9?

ENTIRE McCann and Healy 'family' uncles, aunts, parents, witnesses for McCanns at libel case, ALL T9 kids, etc.,

FOREVER?

Just as an aside:

Are ALL the T9 kiddies being kept away from newspapers, laptops, computers, sleepovers, etc, in case they stumble on, hear about, THEIR own parents 'part' in this case?

AWKWARD 'questions' for T7 'parents' in the future?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1663
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 06.03.14 14:32

@Research_Reader wrote:
Its an important consideration, but is explicitly and publicly ruling them out the only option they had? I'm sure they could have avoided the question with some clever form of words. After all, I bet every word that Redwood has spoken in public about this case has been extremely carefully judged.

What clever form of words would you use?

Anything but "no, the McCanns and the Tapas 7 are not suspects" will be interpreted as "yes, they are suspects."

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by Casey5 on 06.03.14 14:35

I just think that Scotland Yard should not have made any statements concerning anything about the case and then they wouldn't have had to say that the McCanns and their mates are not suspects.

Scotland Yard put themselves in the position of attracting criticism from the public when, in my view, it was totally unnecessary.

I can forsee, years down the line, if this case is never solved that the McCanns will use his phrase to confirm their innocence just as they use the part of the Portuguese shelving document that suits their agenda.

Casey5

Posts : 339
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by suzyjohnson on 06.03.14 14:40

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:
Its an important consideration, but is explicitly and publicly ruling them out the only option they had? I'm sure they could have avoided the question with some clever form of words. After all, I bet every word that Redwood has spoken in public about this case has been extremely carefully judged.

What clever form of words would you use?

Anything but "no, the McCanns and the Tapas 7 are not suspects" will be interpreted as "yes, they are suspects."
Yes, exactly.

And if SY never manage to find proof of any cover-up then SY might well be stuck with having to provide protection for the family for years, not to mention the possibility of them being sued.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1192
Reputation : 261
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by Research_Reader on 06.03.14 14:41

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:
Its an important consideration, but is explicitly and publicly ruling them out the only option they had? I'm sure they could have avoided the question with some clever form of words. After all, I bet every word that Redwood has spoken in public about this case has been extremely carefully judged.

What clever form of words would you use?

Anything but "no, the McCanns and the Tapas 7 are not suspects" will be interpreted as "yes, they are suspects."

This is why public relations gurus get paid a lot, for their ability - in concert with lawyers in cases like this - to come up with clever ways of saying things, deflecting questions etc. No doubt there are also media experts on hand who can teach the likes of Redwood how to use the right voice inflections etc to get his points over. Its not just what you say, but how you say it.

Even though I'm not one of those PR gurus, I would guess it would be along the lines of:

"We're categorically not here today to cast suspicions on the parents. What we are here for is to ask the public for help with identifying the following people who we wish to speak to."

Do you see what I'm getting at? Deflection without letting people draw any solid conclusions.

____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by jeanmonroe on 06.03.14 14:43

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:
Its an important consideration, but is explicitly and publicly ruling them out the only option they had? I'm sure they could have avoided the question with some clever form of words. After all, I bet every word that Redwood has spoken in public about this case has been extremely carefully judged.

What clever form of words would you use?

Anything but "no, the McCanns and the Tapas 7 are not suspects" will be interpreted as "yes, they are suspects."

DCI Redwood "The McCanns and the T7 are NOT suspects, at this time"

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1663
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 06.03.14 14:47

@jeanmonroe wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
What clever form of words would you use?

Anything but "no, the McCanns and the Tapas 7 are not suspects" will be interpreted as "yes, they are suspects."

DCI Redwood "The McCanns and the T7 are NOT suspects, at this time"

Very good, but that leaves it open that they could be suspects in future.  It makes it clear that they haven't been ruled out.

I am gobsmacked that people have the belief that the police would show their cards at the beginning of an investigation.  Really, this is not the way it works in the real world.  We have an ex-policeman here - ask him.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by jeanmonroe on 06.03.14 14:49

@Research_Reader wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:
Its an important consideration, but is explicitly and publicly ruling them out the only option they had? I'm sure they could have avoided the question with some clever form of words. After all, I bet every word that Redwood has spoken in public about this case has been extremely carefully judged.

What clever form of words would you use?

Anything but "no, the McCanns and the Tapas 7 are not suspects" will be interpreted as "yes, they are suspects."

This is why public relations gurus get paid a lot, for their ability - in concert with lawyers in cases like this - to come up with clever ways of saying things, deflecting questions etc. No doubt there are also media experts on hand who can teach the likes of Redwood how to use the right voice inflections etc to get his points over. Its not just what you say, but how you say it.

Even though I'm not one of those PR gurus, I would guess it would be along the lines of:

"We're categorically not here today to cast suspicions on the parents. What we are here for is to ask the public for help with identifying the following people who we wish to speak to."

Do you see what I'm getting at? Deflection without letting people draw any solid conclusions.

Research_Reader

You SHOULD be a PR Guru!  winkwink 

Watch out Clarrie!

New kid on the block!

 laughat  laughat  laughat 


jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1663
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 06.03.14 14:54

@Research_Reader wrote:
This is why public relations gurus get paid a lot, for their ability - in concert with lawyers in cases like this - to come up with clever ways of saying things, deflecting questions etc. No doubt there are also media experts on hand who can teach the likes of Redwood how to use the right voice inflections etc to get his points over. Its not just what you say, but how you say it.

Even though I'm not one of those PR gurus, I would guess it would be along the lines of:

"We're categorically not here today to cast suspicions on the parents. What we are here for is to ask the public for help with identifying the following people who we wish to speak to."

Do you see what I'm getting at? Deflection without letting people draw any solid conclusions.

JOURNALIST: Are the McCanns suspects?

REDWOOD: We're categorically not here today to cast suspicions on the parents. What we are here for is to ask the public for help with identifying the following people who we wish to speak to.

JOURNALIST: But can you confirm that the McCanns are not suspects?

REDWOOD: We're categorically not here today to cast suspicions on the parents. What we are here for is to ask the public for help with identifying the following people who we wish to speak to.

JOURNALIST: So you can't confirm that the McCanns are not suspects.

REDWOOD: We're categorically not here today to cast suspicions on the parents. What we are here for is to ask the public for help with identifying the following people who we wish to speak to.


Tomorrow's headline: MCCANNS PROBABLY SUSPECTS.

Great PR.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by PeterMac on 06.03.14 14:59

It is Policespeak.
Look at the number of times a man has walked free from Court,
and the Police then say "We are not looking for anyone else," or "We have no plans to re-open the case."

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by Research_Reader on 06.03.14 15:02

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
JOURNALIST: Are the McCanns suspects?

REDWOOD: We're categorically not here today to cast suspicions on the parents. What we are here for is to ask the public for help with identifying the following people who we wish to speak to.

JOURNALIST: But can you confirm that the McCanns are not suspects?

REDWOOD: We're categorically not here today to cast suspicions on the parents. What we are here for is to ask the public for help with identifying the following people who we wish to speak to.

JOURNALIST: So you can't confirm that the McCanns are not suspects.

REDWOOD: We're categorically not here today to cast suspicions on the parents. What we are here for is to ask the public for help with identifying the following people who we wish to speak to.


Tomorrow's headline: MCCANNS PROBABLY SUSPECTS.

Great PR.

But they weren't talking to interrogative journalists in an open press conference. If you think of things like CrimeWatch, I bet that the 'rules of engagement' between the interviewer and Redwood are defined beforehand. There is an official line that the police want to get across and Crimewatch help them with that.

____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by Research_Reader on 06.03.14 15:07

@PeterMac wrote:It is Policespeak.
Look at the number of times a man has walked free from Court,
and the Police then say "We are not looking for anyone else," or "We have no plans to re-open the case."

I do understand that, but I suppose the crux of what I'm asking is: would Redwood be allowed - legally, professionally - to explicitly and publically rule someone out as not being a suspect when behind the scenes their investigation is working on the opposite premise. i.e. is he allowed to explicitly lie publicly. 

I can accept that there may be reasons why he might be allowed, but its just something I wonder about.

____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by russiandoll on 06.03.14 15:07

Redwood's face is usually a study in inscrutability, but on CW he cracked a rare smile. I wish I knew why...

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 06.03.14 15:07

@Research_Reader wrote:
But they weren't talking to interrogative journalists in an open press conference. If you think of things like CrimeWatch, I bet that the 'rules of engagement' between the interviewer and Redwood are defined beforehand. There is an official line that the police want to get across and Crimewatch help them with that.

Do we know exactly when Redwood confirmed that the McCanns weren't persons of interest? I seem to remember him saying this in an interview with a TV journalist. As for 'rules of engagement', this wasn't an interview with Madonna.

Anyway, I'll respect PeterMac's experience on this matter.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 06.03.14 15:09

@Research_Reader wrote:
I do understand that, but I suppose the crux of what I'm asking is: would Redwood be allowed - legally, professionally - to explicitly and publically rule someone out as not being a suspect when behind the scenes their investigation is working on the opposite premise. i.e. is he allowed to explicitly lie publicly. 

I can accept that there may be reasons why he might be allowed, but its just something I wonder about.

Of course he'd be allowed to :)  You'd only need to say that 'evidence has come to light' later on.  I'm certain that this issue was discussed at length, and clamping down on the media played a huge part in those discussions.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by Doug D on 06.03.14 16:46

Whatlies
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsP9EVG4XHY&feature=youtu.be
 
This was posted on 5th July 2013, so presumably day or so before.
Redwood talks about moving from review to investigation, and makes the statement:
‘neither her parents or any of the member of the group who were with her are either persons of interest or suspects’ (@1.07)
 
………………………………..
 
I also posted this on the ‘MO Last Check’ thread on 27th Feb.
 
‘Browsing through old newspaper reports I came across the following from the Mirror dated August 9th 2007.
 
You are not suspects - Madeleine cops forced to defend her parents
 
By Martin Fricker
 
Madeleine McCanns parents are not suspects in her disappearance, Portugese police said yesterday. Police spokesman Olegario Sousa said 'The family are not suspects. This is the official position'
 
We know what then happened on 7th September’.
 
………………………………
 
I would like to think that PeterMac’s (Red Flags 09.47) post earlier today about circumstantial evidence and eliminating all the other possibilities in order to force the proof of the circumstantial is the way Redwood is working.
 
An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.’

Doug D

Posts : 2456
Reputation : 846
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by Guest on 06.03.14 16:59

@Doug D wrote:[...]  
I would like to think that PeterMac’s (Red Flags 09.47) post earlier today about circumstantial evidence and eliminating all the other possibilities in order to force the proof of the circumstantial is the way Redwood is working.
 
An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
***
I am convinced, that this is the way they [PJ & NSY] are working on the accidental death/manslaughter/murder part of the case, as it is IMO the only way to untangle the tangled web ... Once they've done that, they can top the bill with the Fund-fraud.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 06.03.14 17:07

Excellent, many thanks Doug D for tracking that source down :)

The statement:

‘neither her parents or any of the member of the group who were with her are either persons of interest or suspects’

does not preclude them from becoming persons of interests or suspects in the future. Saying that they have been 'ruled out' is putting words in Redwood's mouth that never came from him.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by plebgate on 06.03.14 17:13

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:Excellent, many thanks Doug D for tracking that source down :)

The statement:

‘neither her parents or any of the member of the group who were with her are either persons of interest or suspects’

does not preclude them from becoming persons of interests or suspects in the future.  Saying that they have been 'ruled out' is putting words in Redwood's mouth that never came from him.
Well, reading that statement from Mr. Redwood and being  your average Joe, I would say that they are ruled out.

They may well become persons of interests at a later date, but reading that I would say that for now, Mr. Redwood has ruled them out.

plebgate

Posts : 6124
Reputation : 1795
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 06.03.14 17:16

@plebgate wrote:
Well, reading that statement from Mr. Redwood and being  your average Joe, I would say that they are ruled out.

They may well become persons of interests at a later date, but reading that I would say that for now, Mr. Redwood has ruled them out.

Do you think the same about this statement?

'The family are not suspects. This is the official position'


whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum